Regarding the dual purpose nature of the category, I would agree that it was lost due to creep, but I'd suggest that creep was from two sources, and one fed the other, much in the way software development and hardware development were tied together in the early days of computers. (No cool software without increases in processor speed, etc).
Our rules were allowed to creep away from the dual purpose core because, in part, even the most basic form (earliest) of our rules would be illegal to be driven on the road today, in most states.
Further, our sport has seen fundamental shifts in peoples perceptions of, and acceptance of, risk. While we once drove our race cars to the track and nobody gave it much thought*, now, it would go like this:
Husband: "I'm just going to drive the racecar to the track this weekend, so you can have the SUV and take the kids to the beach, honey"
Wife: "WHAT?! Are you insane!? Seriously, have you lost your mind? You'll be killed in that thing! It has no airbags, or traction control or anything!! If it rains and some SUV spins you'll be run over! Flattened!! You have kids, you have responsibility, it's bad enough you take that thing on a track, but on the street!? no way!"
So, I think the rules have evolved to match social norms, technological considerations and legislative standards outside the inner circle of racing and our prep rules as much as anything.
Or, I imagine the rulesmakers thought process could be boiled down to the short story: Why bother having a dual purpose care when nobody will use it like that, and it would be illegal to do in most states anyway?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks